On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/30/12 8:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So what is the most intuitive way to add a hidden
>>>> description/summary/label? I would think "create a
>>>> description/summary/label and then make it hidden".
>>>>
>>>> I.e. you'd write markup like:
>>>>
>>>> <label for=myinput>Label here</label><input id=myinput>
>>>>
>>>> and then hide the stuff that you want to only expose to AT:
>>>> <label hidden for=myinput>Label here</label><input id=myinput>
>>>>
>>>> Similarly:
>>>> <table aria-describedby="desc">...</table>
>>>> <div hidden id=desc>Description here</div>
>>>
>>>
>>> While I disagree with this method.
>>
>> Why? Assuming that the explicit goal is to create content only visible
>> to AT, which is the stated requirement from the accessibility
>> community.
>
> Because it conflicts with existing practices and assumptions about content, both from a general CSS/DOM perspective as well as AT and ARIA. The requirement here is for a semantic means of presenting content without affecting the default visual representation; and the issue is whether the existing mechanism can be obsoleted. There is not a suitable replacement at present.
Please note that I was in no way talking about deprecating @longdesc
in my email, as explicitly mentioned.
What I was talking about was the practice of providing AT-only content
by using aria and other AT attributes to point to content which has
been hidden using @hidden. This includes using @longdesc to point to
such in-page content. Please see examples in my email.
It appears that you are opposing something else (deprecating
@longdesc) which is not what my email was about, nor what the original
email in this thread was about.
/ Jonas